Legislation proposing Michigan compensate people who have been wrongly convicted contains a serious and, we hope, fatal flaw.

About half the states have laws that offer the wrongly convicted a chance at compensation for the time they lost in prison. The laws vary widely from state to state. Louisiana, for instance, has a maximum payout of $150,000, but also guarantees tuition at a college or university. Missouri pays only for those exonerated by DNA evidence. Florida has a $2 million maximum; Alabama has no limit.

In those states that offer compensation, claimants must prove three things: That they were convicted of a criminal offense, they served time in a state prison, and they are innocent.

Each one of those elements snags that make collecting difficult. Juvenile offenses, for instance, aren’t technically criminal offenses in most states, even if they lead to incarceration. Someone who serves time in a county jail instead of state prison isn’t eligible. Innocence, which is not the same as not guilty, has to be proven; dropped charges or a pardon mean no compensation.

Many of the states set a fourth hurdle. Michigan’s proposed law lacks this element, which is why it should not be approved.

The fourth standard says the claimant must not have contributed to his conviction. It might not be easily apparent, but there are a number of ways a person can help get himself convicted.

The clearest and most obvious is confessing to the crime. That’s not as black-and-white as it sounds. Someone who is coerced or misled in confessing, and can demonstrate that – along with proving actual innocence – would be eligible for compensation.

There are other ways the accused may contribute to his conviction, such as tampering with evidence or witnesses, or by covering up someone else’s guilt.

Lacking this fourth element leaves a wide, dangerous gap in Michigan’s proposed law. And it also can be food for thought as legislators ponder the bill.

It raises the question of who is responsible for a wrongful conviction, and who should pay for it. Are Michigan taxpayers responsible, and should they pay? Or are the individuals involved in the arrest, trial and conviction accountable, and isn’t there a civil process for that?

– The Port Huron Times Herald

governor can’t come together. Democrats are backing a petition drive that would ask voters to add $900 million to the Corporate Income Tax, ostensibly to fund roads. It’s an economic suicide pact, but may appeal to voters frustrated by Lansing’s failure to act.

Leaders from both parties should not have allowed the session to adjourn with a deal this close. They ought to have been able to work through their differences, and should have stayed until they did.

It’s still possible. When lawmakers return next month, they should arrive with clear understandings of what is possible. Snyder must accept that the defeat of Prop 1 makes passage of a bill that relies solely on revenue hikes unlikely.

Republicans in the House must recognize that not passing a bill, even one with significant tax hikes, is more politically risky than allowing the roads crisis to go unanswered. And Democrats must stop campaigning and start acting in the best interest of their constituents.

With stronger leadership, a roads deal can get done.

—

The Port Huron Times Herald. August 20, 2015.

Wrongful conviction legislation is flawed.

Legislation proposing Michigan compensate people who have been wrongly convicted contains a serious and, we hope, fatal flaw.

About half the states have laws that offer the wrongly convicted a chance at compensation for the time they lost in prison. The laws vary widely from state to state. Louisiana, for instance, has a maximum payout of $150,000, but also guarantees tuition at a college or university. Missouri pays only for those exonerated by DNA evidence. Florida has a $2 million maximum; Alabama has no limit.

In those states that offer compensation, claimants must prove three things: That they were convicted of a criminal offense, they served time in a state prison, and they are innocent.

Each one of those elements snags that make collecting difficult. Juvenile offenses, for instance, aren’t technically criminal offenses in most states, even if they lead to incarceration. Someone who serves time in a county jail instead of state prison isn’t eligible. Innocence, which is not the same as not guilty, has to be proven; dropped charges or a pardon mean no compensation.

Many of the states set a fourth hurdle. Michigan’s proposed law lacks this element, which is why it should not be approved.

The fourth standard says the claimant must not have contributed to his conviction. It might not be easily apparent, but there are a number of ways a person can help get himself convicted.

The clearest and most obvious is confessing to the crime. That’s not as black-and-white as it sounds. Someone who is coerced or misled in confessing, and can demonstrate that – along with proving actual innocence – would be eligible for compensation.

There are other ways the accused may contribute to his conviction, such as tampering with evidence or witnesses, or by covering up someone else’s guilt.

Lacking this fourth element leaves a wide, dangerous gap in Michigan’s proposed law. And it also can be food for thought as legislators ponder the bill.

It raises the question of who is responsible for a wrongful conviction, and who should pay for it. Are Michigan taxpayers responsible, and should they pay? Or are the individuals involved in the arrest, trial and conviction accountable, and isn’t there a civil process for that?

—

The Petroskey News. August 21, 2015.

Rent demand for recycling bins is near-sighted.

For other communities around the state, Emmet County has been used as an example for how to overcome challenges and make recycling easy and efficient for residents.

Gov. Rick Snyder and officials throughout Michigan have called on the county’s leaders to share the successes of their system, which in addition to the transfer station north of Harbor Springs features numerous other drop-off sites around the county.

For residents of such a large and rural area, it’s hard to imagine how recycling could be made easier.

The vision pioneered by county officials is shared by most throughout the region. Many local businesses and organizations chip in by designating an area on their property free of charge for the county to place large bins for residents to drop off their recyclables. Those bins are then picked up by county trucks that bring them back to the transfer station to be sorted and then sold by the county to be repurposed.

One of 13 such drop-off sites is no longer after today, Friday. In the unfriendliest of moves, the Bloomfield Hills-based owner of Petoskey’s Bay Mall on Spring Street (the shopping plaza that includes Bed Bath & Beyond and Dunham’s Sports, among other stores) demanded the county pay $25,000 a year or remove the recycling bins immediately.

County public works director Elisa Seltzer said her department’s budget isn’t large enough to start renting the land on which the bins sit. Instead, what Seltzer described as the busiest drop-off site in Emmet County won’t exist after today.

Reached by a News-Review reporter this week, Daniel Stern, a partner at Bay Mall shopping center owner Lormax Stern, said recycling trucks that move the bins were causing damage to the parking lot pavement and that items were often left outside of the bins, creating a mess on the property.

“We want to be a good neighbor and be part of the community,” he said, but added that “we’re in essence subsidizing an operation, and it’s really unfair to tenants of the property.”

County officials disputed the claims, saying their trucks enter and exit the mall on a route where the pavement remains in relatively good condition. They also said staff members routinely travel around to clean up drop-off sites and that they would have been willing to focus on the Bay Mall area if requested.

In Northern Michigan, we welcome people from all over the state and nation to visit and invest in the area and enjoy all that it has to offer. We rely on the area’s beauty, as well as our hospitality and accommodating nature to keep the economy healthy. It’s fair that we ask those who do fly in from afar to match the enthusiasm we have for this region.

Lormax Stern’s move not only flies in the face of that, it makes no sense for those who operate businesses within the Bay Mall. Many commercial sites welcome the traffic that enters their shops and businesses because of the recycling drop-off sites. Consumers frequently combine shopping with recycling trips.

And Lomax Stern is also on the wrong side of a statewide initiative to boost recycling. Gov. Snyder announced last year a plan designed to double the amount of goods that are recycled in Michigan each year as the state continues to lag behind the rest of the nation. To achieve this, we all must do our part.

We urge the property owners to rethink this decision and recommend residents who agree with us contact the property owners to let them know. The company’s phone number is (248) 737-7110.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press.